Download What is Social Darwinism? Herbert Spencer, a 19th century

What is Social Darwinism?
Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social
Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic
issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including
human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior
to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.
At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and
government of the "White European" was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures.
Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued
that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some
even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs
that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all
forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.
At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the
Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning
out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler's march to
exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause
of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has
proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.
Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin's
theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin's theory of
Natural Selection and Spencer's beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to
survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic,
physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.
It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are
any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's
philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work.
However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a "kill-or-be-killed" system. Those that cannot
keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as
we now know it, why should that process be countered? If "survival of the fittest" or "kill or be
killed" cannot apply in what we define as "decent society," then, which is wrong, society or
evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain
resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those
in need.
Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging
questions.
Say if these sentences are true or false:
1. Social Darwinism was used to promote the idea that, despite the white race’s superiority, it is
not fitted to rule other races.
2. Forms of charity or welfare could is necessary according to Social Darwinists.
3. Social Darwinism has never had any practical impact on society.
4. Social Darwinists only refer to physical strength in the struggle for survival.
5. Social Darwinism was created by Darwin.